Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re: Where are those chips baked? (Score 1) 47 47

by asbradbury (#47684881) Attached to: Project Aims To Build a Fully Open SoC and Dev Board
You are correct that the standard cell library is going to be proprietary to the fab and therefore out of our control. It will also be produced using proprietary synthesis and place and route tools, which is currently the only feasible way. That said, some people like efabless are using Yosys for synthesis on older process nodes (180nm+).

Comment: Re:Where are those chips baked? (Score 1) 47 47

by asbradbury (#47684873) Attached to: Project Aims To Build a Fully Open SoC and Dev Board
Just to be clear, lowRISC is a separate project to the RISC-V instruction set architecture, though we are lucky enough to have Krste Asanovic on our technical advisory board and are working with the Berkeley team. The results for the 'Rocket' core from Berkeley are using TSMC 40nm, but that isn't necessarily what we will produce lowRISC on.

Comment: Re:Tied to a card (Score 1) 134 134

by Caelius (#28006537) Attached to: Five Nvidia CUDA-Enabled Apps Tested

OpenCL is an open standard, but there is not yet an open source implementation.

Thanks for clarifying to everyone for me. I was in a hurry and misspoke. I was trying to imply that it wasn't tied to a single company/entity like CUDA, but rather a consortium of industry players, and "open-source" is what my fingers typed, instead of "open standard." Gah.

Comment: Re:Strong rebuttal? WTF? (Score 1) 362 362

by Caelius (#24361999) Attached to: Medical Health Disclosure vs. Steve Jobs' Privacy

. And no law is forcing Steve Jobs to expose his medical history, nor does any corporation or individual have the power to legally force him to release this information. Apple cannot cite stock price losses as damages. They are also not required to present his health information to any outside entity, in accordance with his legal rights to protect that information. But I don't see where they are. He's reacting to negative articles and political developments both inside and outside his company, and his legal rights have nothing to do with these things.

Actually, I thought the entire point of this discussion *was* whether or not Jobs had the legal obligation to disclose his health.

If the law says that you must disclose all relevant information to the performance of the company, and Jobs's health has a drastic effect on his performance, one could make the legal case that Jobs must therefore - according to the law - disclose his health.

IANAL, and I barely RTFA, but that's what I gathered the discussion was about. But beyond that, your point is valid - a right doesn't prevent negative repercussions from happening to you.


Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Takeover Offer 336 336

Posted by timothy
from the brinksmanship-in-the-pac-no-west dept.
mksmac writes "According to the KOMO TV Website, Microsoft has withdrawn its bid for Yahoo after presenting them with an increased offer that was subsequently declined by Yahoo. Frankly, this seems like a smarter decision on Microsoft's part, but I'd like to hear how other people feel about the deal. Should Microsoft have walked away, pressured Yahoo via a hostile takeover or sweetened the pot until Yahoo gave in?" For those who prefer it, the NYT also has coverage, and the story is also at news.com, among many others. I like the Beeb's version as well. And for the Microsoft-centric explanation of why the courtship is over, see Steve Balmer's letter to Jerry Yang.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers